About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


13 Crime & Delinquency [i] (1967)

handle is hein.journals/cadq13 and id is 1 raw text is: Foreword THIS SPECIAL ISSUE OF Crime and Delinquency CONTAINS THE FULL text of NCCD's survey of correction in the United States, conducted in 1966 for the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. While the primary purpose of the study was to help the Presi- dent's Commission assess the nation-wide status of correction and provide a basis for recommendations to bring about needed changes, the report contains data and information which will undoubtedly also be valuable in the planning of effective correctional programs at all levels of government. One cannot read the report without being struck by the fact that American correctional philosophy is a philosophy of institutionaliza- tion. Noninstitutional services are regarded as alternatives to im- prisonment, rather than the other way around. Unless there is a major shift in the spirit underlying correction, the next decade will see a spread of what is already an excessive reliance on institutions as the nation's principal correctional method. While this is a descriptive and quantitative report, comparison of the findings with accepted national standards yields much material from which qualitative assumptions can be drawn. If well-balanced and effective correctional systems are to be achieved throughout the United States, problems created by the fragmentation of services described in the report must be overcome. Each state must develop the means to coordinate planning so that priorities for program support and development can be given to those services that show the greatest promise for enabling offenders to achieve a satisfactory social adjustment. State and regional patterns of service will generally produce better results than will state subsidies for limited local functions adminis- tratively unrelated to other correctional services. A greater alloca- tion of state funds and staff for probation, parole, and other forms of community-based services will both reduce state expenditures for institutions and enable the institutions to provide specialized serv- ices to smaller populations. By providing grants to states according to well-documented priori- ties, the federal government could promote uniformly high stand- ards in every section of the country. Some federally operated re- gional diagnostic and specialized treatment facilities for groups of the less populated states could facilitate a better use of state funds for the majority of offenders. While many new and promising programs are being operated